Defense of Officials: Mitigating the Threat of 24/7 House Arrest

The prosecution charged our Client – the head of the land department of a local government body – with abuse of power or official position (Part 2 of Art. 28, Part 1 of Art. 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). To justify the motion for a preventive measure in the form of 24/7 house arrest, the prosecutor cited a standard list of risks: the potential for absconding from the investigation, destroying or tampering with documents, and exerting unlawful influence on witnesses and subordinates.

Anzhela Pavlenko, Counsel, Attorney-at-Law Grain Law Firm, successfully demonstrated to the court that the prosecution’s demands were groundless and disproportionate. The defense presented evidence showing that the risk of destruction or concealment of case materials was entirely mitigated, as all original documents and digital media had already been seized by law enforcement during searches. Furthermore, the risks of influencing witnesses or continuing unlawful activity were refuted, given that the Client had already been suspended from office.

After examining the evidence promptly gathered by the defense and considering the attorney’s legally sound positioning, the investigating judge ruled that the request for 24/7 house arrest was unsubstantiated. The prosecutor’s motion was denied, and a significantly milder preventive measure – a personal recognizance (personal obligation) was imposed on the Client.

The Client’s interests were protected and represented in court by Grain Law Firm Attorney, Anzhela Pavlenko.